Gun Control Debunked

[Ethereal]

1. The most essential narrative promoted by proponents of gun control is that gun homicides in the USA is a major problem that everyone must be worried about. Without this basic assumption, there would be no need to discuss the issue at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. According to the latest CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm), there were approximately 11,008 gun homicides in 2014. The estimated population of the USA in 2014, according to the Census (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk), was approximately 318,857,056. That translates to roughly a 0.003% chance of becoming the victim of a gun homicide. By comparison, 33,018 Americans died from falling down in 2014 according to CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf), meaning the average American is about three times more likely to die from falling down than from a firearm homicide. If there were any sense of rationality and proportionality to this debate, then we would expect to see roughly three times as much emphasis being placed on falling deaths than on gun homicides. Yet we see precisely the opposite. Almost no attention is given to falling deaths whereas there is an inordinate amount of attention directed at gun homicides.

2. The most essential corollary to the previous narrative is that gun control is effective at dealing with this exaggerated problem. What is further implied by this corollary is that a lack of gun control is what causes, directly or indirectly, the problem of gun homicides. This is also demonstrably false. According to data compiled by The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/), the number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 56% between 1993 and 2013. During that same time, the gun homicide rate decreased by 49%.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns31.png

This is not intended to demonstrate that guns cause crime to go down, although that is certainly an argument one could make, rather, it is intended to demonstrate that there are other, far more significant variables that contribute to violent gun crime, variables such as poverty, drug prohibition, and psychological health. Further evidence tends to support this. UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, did a statistical analysis comparing state gun laws with gun homicide rates and found no correlation between the two (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.957d63126b79). This lack of a correlation is demonstrated amply by states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine who have some of the lowest gun homicide rates in the USA (comparable to Canada and Australia) and some of the laxest gun laws in America. IF lax gun laws were a significant cause of gun homicides, then we would expect to see the exact opposite.

3. Despite a dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of gun control in controlling gun crime, gun control proponents nevertheless push specific forms of gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. The only problem, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/us/shootings-gun-violence.html), is that their specific solutions wouldn't have made any difference in the large majority of cases. Out of 130 mass shootings studied by the New York Times, more than 50% involved an assailant who was legally barred from owning a firearm and 64% of shootings involved at least one assailant who violated existing gun laws. Of the remaining assailants, 40% of them had no psychological or criminal history that would have prevented them from obtaining a firearm legally even in states with the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore, only 14 out of 130 shootings involved a so-called "assault rifle". Put simply, the "solutions" typically offered in the aftermath of mass shooting are not really solutions at all.

4. In the course of these debates, gun control advocates invariably make assurances that they aren't interested in coming after the guns of law abiding Americans. We don't want to ban guns, they tell us. Once again, this is demonstrably false. In observing how the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) behave on the state and local level, where they have little to no meaningful opposition to their political agenda, we can see that banning guns is exactly what they want to do. Two of the most notable examples are Chicago and Washington DC where Democrats have a virtual political monopoly and where ALL guns were, according the Supreme Court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521), effectively banned by their municipal governments. And if that isn't enough to convince you they want to ban guns, simply look at the gun laws in countries that Democrats typically hold up as an example to follow: The UK, Australia, Japan, etc. These countries treat gun ownership, not as an essential right, but as a government-granted privilege that becomes more narrowly applied with each passing year. So despite their assurances to the contrary, it's exceedingly clear that the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) intend to ban firearms or, at the very least, greatly limit access to them.

5. The last issue I will address is not so much a narrative or an argument as much as it is an observation, i.e., most proponents of gun control know very little about actual guns. Apparently, being extremely ignorant about something is not an obstacle to having a strong opinion about it for proponents of gun control.

Summary: This is not supposed to be a comprehensive rebuttal of all the arguments and narratives being pushed by gun control advocates. So feel free to add your own points. However, it seems clear that the most important and frequently cited arguments in favor of gun control are completely bunk. Knowing this, the question becomes: Why do people keep pushing these arguments when they are so obviously false? I'll let the reader come to their own conclusions.

[Captain Obvious]

The low information crowd will just flat out ignore this.

They have been programmed to push an establishment agenda, logic and facts be damned.

[resister]

This thread is liberal kryptonite, I look forward to loads of rebuttal!

[Ethereal]

The low information crowd will just flat out ignore this.

That's because my arguments are unemotional and fact-based, something Democrats struggle to comprehend.

[Ethereal]

This thread is liberal kryptonite, I look forward to loads of rebuttal!
Yes, we all know they will stay away from this thread precisely because they cannot rebut it.

[Tahuyaman]

Like I said in another thread. Since 1994 gun ownership or the number of guns in circulation has increased more than 55%, but crimes committed with guns has decreased 49%. This should tell you that the more people arm themselves, the less crimes are committed with guns.

[resister]

Where are the liberals?

[Ethereal]

Where are the liberals?
https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg

[jigglepete]

Where are the liberals?

Well, there are so many "welcoming" posts in this thread so far... I personally couldn't imagine.

[Ethereal]

Well, there are so many "welcoming" posts in this thread so far... I personally couldn't imagine.

So liberals are too intimidated to post in this thread?

[jigglepete]

So liberals are too intimidated to post in this thread?

Just so you know, I agree with the op, but someone asked where the liberals are and I answered... I live in Vermont, and once again I agree with your article...

[jimmyz]

Where are the liberals?

Trying to find a reason to attack the OP's source I would imagine.

[Ethereal]

Just so you know, I agree with the op, but someone asked where the liberals are and I answered... I live in Vermont, and once again I agree with your article...
I think the more likely explanation is that they cannot rebut my arguments with their vapid DNC talking points.

[jimmyz]

Fact have no emotion in them. And as we know, Leftists are all about emotions.

[Crepitus]

1. The most essential narrative promoted by proponents of gun control is that gun homicides in the USA is a major problem that everyone must be worried about. Without this basic assumption, there would be no need to discuss the issue at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. According to the latest CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm), there were approximately 11,008 gun homicides in 2014. The estimated population of the USA in 2014, according to the Census (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk), was approximately 318,857,056. That translates to roughly a 0.003% chance of becoming the victim of a gun homicide. By comparison, 33,018 Americans died from falling down in 2014 according to CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf), meaning the average American is about three times more likely to die from falling down than from a firearm homicide. If there were any sense of rationality and proportionality to this debate, then we would expect to see roughly three times as much emphasis being placed on falling deaths than on gun homicides. Yet we see precisely the opposite. Almost no attention is given to falling deaths whereas there is an inordinate amount of attention directed at gun homicides.

2. The most essential corollary to the previous narrative is that gun control is effective at dealing with this exaggerated problem. What is further implied by this corollary is that a lack of gun control is what causes, directly or indirectly, the problem of gun homicides. This is also demonstrably false. According to data compiled by The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/), the number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 56% between 1993 and 2013. During that same time, the gun homicide rate decreased by 49%.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns31.png

This is not intended to demonstrate that guns cause crime to go down, although that is certainly an argument one could make, rather, it is intended to demonstrate that there are other, far more significant variables that contribute to violent gun crime, variables such as poverty, drug prohibition, and psychological health. Further evidence tends to support this. UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, did a statistical analysis comparing state gun laws with gun homicide rates and found no correlation between the two (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.957d63126b79). This lack of a correlation is demonstrated amply by states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine who have some of the lowest gun homicide rates in the USA (comparable to Canada and Australia) and some of the laxest gun laws in America. IF lax gun laws were a significant cause of gun homicides, then we would expect to see the exact opposite.

3. Despite a dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of gun control in controlling gun crime, gun control proponents nevertheless push specific forms of gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. The only problem, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/us/shootings-gun-violence.html), is that their specific solutions wouldn't have made any difference in the large majority of cases. Out of 130 mass shootings studied by the New York Times, more than 50% involved an assailant who was legally barred from owning a firearm and 64% of shootings involved at least one assailant who violated existing gun laws. Of the remaining assailants, 40% of them had no psychological or criminal history that would have prevented them from obtaining a firearm legally even in states with the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore, only 14 out of 130 shootings involved a so-called "assault rifle". Put simply, the "solutions" typically offered in the aftermath of mass shooting are not really solutions at all.

4. In the course of these debates, gun control advocates invariably make assurances that they aren't interested in coming after the guns of law abiding Americans. We don't want to ban guns, they tell us. Once again, this is demonstrably false. In observing how the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) behave on the state and local level, where they have little to no meaningful opposition to their political agenda, we can see that banning guns is exactly what they want to do. Two of the most notable examples are Chicago and Washington DC where Democrats have a virtual political monopoly and where ALL guns were, according the Supreme Court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521), effectively banned by their municipal governments. And if that isn't enough to convince you they want to ban guns, simply look at the gun laws in countries that Democrats typically hold up as an example to follow: The UK, Australia, Japan, etc. These countries treat gun ownership, not as an essential right, but as a government-granted privilege that becomes more narrowly applied with each passing year. So despite their assurances to the contrary, it's exceedingly clear that the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) intend to ban firearms or, at the very least, greatly limit access to them.

5. The last issue I will address is not so much a narrative or an argument as much as it is an observation, i.e., most proponents of gun control know very little about actual guns. Apparently, being extremely ignorant about something is not an obstacle to having a strong opinion about it for proponents of gun control.

Summary: This is not supposed to be a comprehensive rebuttal of all the arguments and narratives being pushed by gun control advocates. So feel free to add your own points. However, it seems clear that the most important and frequently cited arguments in favor of gun control are completely bunk. Knowing this, the question becomes: Why do people keep pushing these arguments when they are so obviously false? I'll let the reader come to their own conclusions.

The people who died from falling down weren't murder victims by and large.

[Crepitus]

1. The most essential narrative promoted by proponents of gun control is that gun homicides in the USA is a major problem that everyone must be worried about. Without this basic assumption, there would be no need to discuss the issue at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. According to the latest CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm), there were approximately 11,008 gun homicides in 2014. The estimated population of the USA in 2014, according to the Census (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk), was approximately 318,857,056. That translates to roughly a 0.003% chance of becoming the victim of a gun homicide. By comparison, 33,018 Americans died from falling down in 2014 according to CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf), meaning the average American is about three times more likely to die from falling down than from a firearm homicide. If there were any sense of rationality and proportionality to this debate, then we would expect to see roughly three times as much emphasis being placed on falling deaths than on gun homicides. Yet we see precisely the opposite. Almost no attention is given to falling deaths whereas there is an inordinate amount of attention directed at gun homicides.

2. The most essential corollary to the previous narrative is that gun control is effective at dealing with this exaggerated problem. What is further implied by this corollary is that a lack of gun control is what causes, directly or indirectly, the problem of gun homicides. This is also demonstrably false. According to data compiled by The American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/), the number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 56% between 1993 and 2013. During that same time, the gun homicide rate decreased by 49%.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns31.png

This is not intended to demonstrate that guns cause crime to go down, although that is certainly an argument one could make, rather, it is intended to demonstrate that there are other, far more significant variables that contribute to violent gun crime, variables such as poverty, drug prohibition, and psychological health. Further evidence tends to support this. UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, did a statistical analysis comparing state gun laws with gun homicide rates and found no correlation between the two (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.957d63126b79). This lack of a correlation is demonstrated amply by states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine who have some of the lowest gun homicide rates in the USA (comparable to Canada and Australia) and some of the laxest gun laws in America. IF lax gun laws were a significant cause of gun homicides, then we would expect to see the exact opposite.

3. Despite a dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of gun control in controlling gun crime, gun control proponents nevertheless push specific forms of gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. The only problem, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/us/shootings-gun-violence.html), is that their specific solutions wouldn't have made any difference in the large majority of cases. Out of 130 mass shootings studied by the New York Times, more than 50% involved an assailant who was legally barred from owning a firearm and 64% of shootings involved at least one assailant who violated existing gun laws. Of the remaining assailants, 40% of them had no psychological or criminal history that would have prevented them from obtaining a firearm legally even in states with the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore, only 14 out of 130 shootings involved a so-called "assault rifle". Put simply, the "solutions" typically offered in the aftermath of mass shooting are not really solutions at all.

4. In the course of these debates, gun control advocates invariably make assurances that they aren't interested in coming after the guns of law abiding Americans. We don't want to ban guns, they tell us. Once again, this is demonstrably false. In observing how the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) behave on the state and local level, where they have little to no meaningful opposition to their political agenda, we can see that banning guns is exactly what they want to do. Two of the most notable examples are Chicago and Washington DC where Democrats have a virtual political monopoly and where ALL guns were, according the Supreme Court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521), effectively banned by their municipal governments. And if that isn't enough to convince you they want to ban guns, simply look at the gun laws in countries that Democrats typically hold up as an example to follow: The UK, Australia, Japan, etc. These countries treat gun ownership, not as an essential right, but as a government-granted privilege that becomes more narrowly applied with each passing year. So despite their assurances to the contrary, it's exceedingly clear that the primary proponents of gun control (Democrats) intend to ban firearms or, at the very least, greatly limit access to them.

5. The last issue I will address is not so much a narrative or an argument as much as it is an observation, i.e., most proponents of gun control know very little about actual guns. Apparently, being extremely ignorant about something is not an obstacle to having a strong opinion about it for proponents of gun control.

Summary: This is not supposed to be a comprehensive rebuttal of all the arguments and narratives being pushed by gun control advocates. So feel free to add your own points. However, it seems clear that the most important and frequently cited arguments in favor of gun control are completely bunk. Knowing this, the question becomes: Why do people keep pushing these arguments when they are so obviously false? I'll let the reader come to their own conclusions.

And even if they were pushed, nobody pushed almost 600 of them at once.

[Ethereal]

The people who died from falling down weren't murder victims by and large.
They're still dead when they would rather be alive.

[Ethereal]

And even if they were pushed, nobody pushed almost 600 of them at once.
Still, substantially more people die from falling down than from gun homicides, yet nobody seems to think that's a major problem.

[Captain Obvious]

Fact have no emotion in them. And as we know, Leftists are all about emotions.

That's why everyone shits the bed and writes their congressman during a rare "mass murder" that equals the number of gun violence deaths in Chicago alone on any given day.

It's inherently racist also.

[Crepitus]

They're still dead when they would rather be alive.

But not at someone else's hands. Straw man.

[Crepitus]

Still, substantially more people die from falling down than from gun homicides, yet nobody seems to think that's a major problem.

Accident vs intent. No equivalency.

[resister]

Accident vs intent. No equivalency.
As the second liberal to respond, you still cant rebut the op!

[Ethereal]

But not at someone else's hands. Straw man.
You don't even know what a strawman is.

[Ethereal]

Accident vs intent. No equivalency.
Is a person who died as the result of an accident any less dead than a person who died as the result of an intentional act?

Are their loved ones any less devastated by the loss?

Are you implying that their deaths don't matter? Or that they matter less?

[resister]

I see not one single person has attempted to rebut the cold hard facts presented by the OP. Smart.

[Cthulhu]

I see not one single person has attempted to rebut the cold hard facts presented by the OP. Smart.Because it cannot be done.

Hell, at this point I don't even think they could read through it all without short circuiting their frontal lobe.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Captain Obvious]

So this is a no-show from our resident left hacks.

Shocker...

They are off peddling the ignorance of fear and horror.

[Crepitus]

You don't even know what a strawman is.

Can you address the point or not?

[Crepitus]

Is a person who died as the result of an accident any less dead than a person who died as the result of an intentional act?

Are their loved ones any less devastated by the loss?

Are you implying that their deaths don't matter? Or that they matter less?

Ok, since the6 are just as dead you are no longer allowed to remove gun suicides from the gun death statistics. How do they stack up now?

[Cthulhu]

Ok, since the6 are just as dead you are no longer allowed to remove gun suicides from the gun death statistics. How do they stack up now?Even with suicides - a BS number padding idea might I add, they are still negligible compared to tobacco, alcohol etc...

Besides, their body, their choice - so really, you can't use it anyway.

Suicides must remain off the table or you have to count abortions as murder.

And then guns have nothing on vacuums and scalpels.

Awkward isn't it?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Crepitus]

Even with suicides - a BS number padding idea might I add, they are still negligible compared to tobacco, alcohol etc...

Besides, their body, their choice - so really, you can't use it anyway.

Suicides must remain off the table or you have to count abortions as murder.

And then guns have nothing on vacuums and scalpels.

Awkward isn't it?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Not for me, you started it with trying to equate accidental falling deaths with gun murders.

[Cthulhu]

Not for me, you started it with trying to equate accidental falling deaths with gun murders.Uh, no.

That was Ethereal, not me.

Regardless, if you're going to move goal posts, so am I.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Crepitus]

Uh, no.

That was Ethereal, not me.

Regardless, if you're going to move goal posts, so am I.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

I get you guys confused, you say the same things. Anywho disregard then, comment was not meant for you.

[Ethereal]

Can you address the point or not?
You don't have one.

[Ethereal]

Ok, since the6 are just as dead you are no longer allowed to remove gun suicides from the gun death statistics. How do they stack up now?

Suicide is a choice. Death by accident and homicide are not. Therein lies an important distinction. But let's include suicides purely for the sake of argument, that would put total gun deaths roughly on par with total falling deaths. Yet the former receives far more attention than the latter.

[Ethereal]

I get you guys confused, you say the same things.

This is unbecoming a person in your position.

[Cthulhu]

I get you guys confused, you say the same things. Anywho disregard then, comment was not meant for you.Not really...

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Crepitus]

You don't have one.

I'm gonna take that as a "no" then...K?

[Crepitus]

Suicide is a choice. Death by accident and homicide are not. Therein lies an important distinction. But let's include suicides purely for the sake of argument, that would put total gun deaths roughly on par with total falling deaths. Yet the former receives far more attention than the latter.

Lol, you are drawing distinctions you weren't a little while ago. What happened to "dead is dead"?

[Crepitus]

This is unbecoming a person in your position.:rollseyes:

[Crepitus]

Not really...

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Yes, really

[Ethereal]

Lol, you are drawing distinctions you weren't a little while ago. What happened to "dead is dead"?
I'm drawing the exact same distinction I did to start with. One is a choice and the others are not.

But like I said, let's include suicides for the sake of argument. That would put total gun deaths roughly on par with total falling deaths. Yet the former receives far more attention than the latter. So in any case my point remains. And it's also worth noting that I made MANY points in my OP which you did not address in the slightest.

[ripmeister]

Suicide is a choice. Death by accident and homicide are not. Therein lies an important distinction. But let's include suicides purely for the sake of argument, that would put total gun deaths roughly on par with total falling deaths. Yet the former receives far more attention than the latter.
Are you saying that death by homicide is not someone making a choice?

[Ethereal]

Are you saying that death by homicide is not someone making a choice?
Someone is making a choice, just not the victim.

[ripmeister]

Someone is making a choice, just not the victim.
But a choice is made. It's not a random choiceless event

[Ethereal]

But a choice is made. It's not a random choiceless event

Yes, I'm aware of that. But it makes a big difference who is making the choice. In the case of a homicide, it is not the victim.

[Common]

The left knows they will never win this argument, if they were to ban all guns sales tonight, there will still be far more guns than there are men women and children

[ripmeister]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But it makes a big difference who is making the choice. In the case of a homicide, it is not the victim.
True but to equate that with "accidental" deaths is out of line IMO.

[Ethereal]

True but to equate that with "accidental" deaths is out of line IMO.
People don't choose to die accidentally, just as people do not choose to be murdered. Both result in death; both are tragic; both are theoretically preventable. They are effectively no different from one another.

[ripmeister]

People don't choose to die accidentally, just as people do not choose to be murdered. Both result in death; both are tragic; both are theoretically preventable. They are effectively no different from one another.
The outcome is no different but the path to that outcome is very different.

[Ethereal]

The outcome is no different but the path to that outcome is very different.
And... ?

[Ethereal]

Building on the OP, a statistician who was with FiveThirtyEight spent three months researching all 33,000 gun deaths in the US and concluded that gun control was effectively powerless to change anything.


I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.d1c84e9d4ac9)

By Leah Libresco October 3

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

[...]

She also addresses suicides, magazine limits, so-called "silencers" and "assault weapons", and gang violence.

[Ethereal]

Since there is another campaign by Democrats to push through their gun control agenda, I thought it was appropriate to bump this thread back up to remind them how every argument they make is demonstrably bunk.